[CTcard]

The strong attitude among many people at the U of O then was that the football program was independent of the university, which to a large degree was a partly-owned subsidiary of Nike.  It's unlikely you can find a school anywhere in America where so many people harbor so much ambivalence, or even disdain, toward the football program. 

I don't know UO well enough to make a comparative statement.

Broadly speaking there is ambivalence at most universities about the big money sports. My reading is that faculty and staff, broadly speaking, are sports fans. However, they are also typically concerned about just what the embrace of professional-lite sports has done to the mission and image of universities. The biggest concerns are the dollars drawn out of the universities by most major sports programs. My impression is that there is far more support at those few universities where sports at least fund themselves and where the most rampant compromises are held in check.

I would imagine things at UO are particularly raw. As the article notes, UO was one of the state flagship schools first hit with the state getting out of the business of supporting the state university. This has severely hit the quality of its offerings across the board.

And I met Thomas Unger more than once, including during the time when Nike descended on campus with their rebranding initiative. 

I assume you mean Tom Hager, the director of communications?

[CTcard]

The strong attitude among many people at the U of O then was that the football program was independent of the university, which to a large degree was a partly-owned subsidiary of Nike.  It's unlikely you can find a school anywhere in America where so many people harbor so much ambivalence, or even disdain, toward the football program. 

I don't know UO well enough to make a comparative statement.

Broadly speaking there is ambivalence at most universities about the big money sports. My reading is that faculty and staff, broadly speaking, are sports fans. However, they are also typically concerned about just what the embrace of professional-lite sports has done to the mission and image of universities. The biggest concerns are the dollars drawn out of the universities by most major sports programs. My impression is that there is far more support at those few universities where sports at least fund themselves and where the most rampant compromises are held in check.

I would imagine things at UO are particularly raw. As the article notes, UO was one of the state flagship schools first hit with the state getting out of the business of supporting the state university. This has severely hit the quality of its offerings across the board.

And I met Thomas Unger more than once, including during the time when Nike descended on campus with their rebranding initiative. 

I assume you mean Tom Hager, the director of communications?